R v Peter Kane

For a statutory application challenged on the ground that it was made or approved without authority, a bare assertion of authorisation is insufficient. Under the Serious Crime Act 2007, the court must identify the delegation in force at the relevant time, its scope, the office held by the purported delegate, and the particular application considered and approved. Where applications or proposed orders change, the authorised application and the one ultimately pursued must be identified; amendment does not necessarily require fresh approval. If the evidence is inadequate, the proper course is to adjourn and direct further evidence before determining the challenge or any consequential application for leave or an extension of time.

This was a renewed application by Peter Kane for an extension of 2,679 days to seek leave to appeal against a Serious Crime Prevention Order imposed after his conviction. He also sought time to renew the application after a single judge refused it on 7 May 2025. His principal contention was that the application had not been made or approved by an authorised delegate of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The prosecution relied on approval by Kate Brown, then Chief Crown Prosecutor for Wessex, but the necessary delegation and approval evidence was absent. The Court considered the appropriate course in light of R v Shirley [2022] 4 WLR 64.

Disposition. The renewed application was adjourned. The Court did not determine the extensions of time or whether leave to appeal should be granted.

1. Statutory authority. Section 8 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 identifies the Director of Public Prosecutions as a person who may apply for a Serious Crime Prevention Order. Schedule 2 paragraph 2 permits the Director to delegate that function to a Crown Prosecutor. The existence and scope of the delegation, and whether the approving person fell within it, are factual matters which may require evidence.
2. Insufficient evidence. The prosecution’s assertion that Kate Brown had approved the application was not supported by the delegation in force in October 2015, evidence of the office or offices she held, the original application and notice, or a contemporaneous record of her consideration and approval. The identity of the prosecuting unit and the fact that the authority was apparent to the judge and defence did not establish statutory authorisation.
3. Applications and amendments. The Court had to identify the application approved and the application ultimately pursued. Amendment of proposed terms did not necessarily require fresh approval, but equivalent evidence was required if a later or materially amended application was said to have been separately authorised. Evidence considered in R v Shirley [2022] 4 WLR 64 concerned a later period and did not establish the delegation in force in October 2015.
4. Directions. Following the approach adopted in R v Shirley [2022] 4 WLR 64, the Respondent was directed to file and serve evidence by 4.00 pm on 2 October 2026 addressing the delegation, Kate Brown’s office, the applications and notices, the approval record, the prosecuting authority, and any later authorisation. The Applicant may respond within 28 days. The application was to be relisted after 2 November 2026.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 21 August 2026, the renewed application was adjourned and directions were given for further evidence.
• Court of Appeal single judge: On 7 May 2025, the necessary extensions of time and leave to appeal were refused.
• Crown Court at Bristol: The Applicant was convicted in October 2015 and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment. A Serious Crime Prevention Order was made following a hearing in April 2017.